A few more details coming out now. ( via Sky's live blog coverage.)At the start of the trial the Crown tried to amend the charge, so Stokes would stand accused of two counts of assault resulting in actual bodily harm but this was rejected by the judge.

Half way through the trial Stokes' legal team tried to have the case against him thrown out but this was also refused by the judge

Barrister and legal commentator Jeremy Brier told Sky News that affray was "the classic pub brawl charge" where it is not clear exactly what happened and how injuries were caused, but the Crown must prove that members of the public would have feared for their own safety.

No one on god's green earth will ever know why the CPS charged with affray. It made sense maybe a little, but all the evidence looked good enough. The brawl could be separated to the point one codefendant was acquitted before all evidence.

And he'd never had got of with an offence against the person act charge. No way in hell

budgetmeansbudget wrote:Him and Hales have now got an ECB disciplinary trial to face now, so another suspension is likely.

Sky Sports News suggesting this process could take several weeks. Stokes was effectively banned from the Ashes and several ODI's so they could backdate any ban. Other question is will he be available whilst this disciplinary procedure is ongoing?I don't know why the ECB couldn't have already decided on a course of action - Hales wasn't charged with anything and there were only two possible outcomes for Stokes - guilty or not guilty - so why could they not have already decided on what to do in either eventuality.

Can't say I'm surprised. Always thought the Prosecution decision to level a charge of affray was a strange one. Even the evidence - parts I read anyway - that they put up seemed more designed for an assault charge. Left it fairly easy for the jury to chuck it out. Lucky Ben...

What follows ? Not much , I'd imagine . Stokes has already effectively served a suspension from the International game and it would be a bit rich for the ECB now to react to a not guilty verdict by applying some additional sanction of their own.

Do I approve of Ben's actions ? No , of course not. But the law of the land has dealt with the case and I don't think it is now up to a sporting body to act as some kind of moral police. I do hope he's learned something from this whole sorry saga and will in future confine his aggression to hitting or propelling the cricket ball.

Wouldn't bring him back for Trent Bridge though. Team is already picked ; best leave it as is ...I'd imagine they'll find a spot for him in the next game.